Popular Anti-Mormon Misconceptions

[Daniel Peterson]

have you ever been paid to speak?

Not, I think, on a Mormon topic. Nothing apologetic. (Perhaps I received a modest honorarium when I gave a paper at a symposium on Mormonism held at Yale University a few years ago; I simply can't remember.) Typically, when I speak within a few hours of my home, I receive nothing at all -- not even compensation for my gas. If I have to fly somewhere in order to speak, though, somebody picks up my expenses for transportation, food, and lodging. But, again, I receive no honorarium or other compensation beyond that. Once in a while, somebody gives me a little gift (e.g., a book or, once, a scented candle with "Cornell University" written on it that was given to me by the LDS student group there) as a token of thanks.

Occasionally, I've been paid to speak on Islam. I've given paid lectures on that topic in places like Santa Barbara, California, and Paris, France, and at UCLA and UC San Diego. And there's a wealthy Episcopal church back in Delaware that's had me speak in its academic lecture series three years running. There are others, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind. I've got a really elegant medallion given me by the president of the University of Damascus, and some plaques from universities in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the like.

I'm going into such detail because, frankly, I'm tired of claims that I'm a mercenary hack who defends Mormonism for the money. My financial interests have not been furthered by my "apologetic" work. If anything, they've been harmed, as (inevitably) has my mainstream academic output.

P.S. -- Thanks, Mister Scratch, for the positive wishes for my Japan-bound son.

[Pahoran]

I was anticipating William the Conqueror getting stuck into this thread and cleaning my clock with the devastatingly powerful anti-Mormon arguments in support.

Alas, he let me down. Sigh.

Well, I guess I shall have to step into the breach. Here are some of the better arguments supporting these misconceptions.

1) The "Mormon Suicide" issue: "9 out of the top 11 states in the suicide numbers are Rocky Mountain states where the highest concentration of Mormons resides!"

And yet the reality is that, among those nine, the actual suicide rates vary inversely with LDS concentration. Wyoming, Montana and Nevada are the mountain states with the lowest percentage of Latter-day Saints per population, and they rank 1, 2 and 3 in the stats. Thus, in states where the LDS population is great enough to make a difference, "Mormonness" may be a factor that mitigates suicide numbers. Certainly it does not aggravate them.

"The states that are further and further away from the Mormon concentrated states, have the lower to lowest suicide rates."

So what does this mean? That the mere thought of living near Mormons is enough to make some "Christians" suicidal?

The fact is that the stats don't report attempted suicides, only successful ones. Firearm attempts have the highest success rate, and pharmaceutical or wrist-cutting attempts have the lowest. Thus, the factor most influential in suicide stats is the availability of guns.

2) The "Mormon depression" issue. "More Utah residents use Prozac than the residents of any other state, twice the rate of California and nearly three times the rates in New York and New Jersey."

So it would seem; but "Prozac" does not equal all antidepressants, does it? It is merely one of a set of prescription choices, and it happens that Utah doctors seem to favour it.

In response to the fact the Mormons do not self-medicate with alcohol, a common anti-Mormon response is, "Why would so many Mormons need to medicate, in the home state of 'the only true church on earth on the face of the earth,' where they 'Choose the Right?' Why are the states with highest rates of antidepressant drug use, be the most heavily occupied Mormon states?"

The fact is that, again, "Prozac" does not equal all antidepressants. No attempt has been made to discover who is actually using these medicines or what the actual incidence of depression in the Church is, and compare it to the general population; a mere glance at the map is all that is necessary to find some polemical utility in something that is actually unrelated to any of the Church's actual truth claims.

"I believe the depression is linked to the high stress level of being LDS. Think of all you have to do to be in the Celestial Kingdom (spend eternity with God)."

This line of argument relies upon the assumption that some link between depression and Church membership has been established; IOW, it is circular, and therefore a fallacy.

The next response at this point is usually to appeal to anecdotal evidence. No commentary on the value of that is necessary.

3) The "Born at Jerusalem" issue: "Bethlehem was and is located in Judea, Jerusalem was not. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea (Matt 2:1), not Bethlehem of Jerusalem."

No, I am not making this up. This argument really was used. William really did think it compelling.

But it is garbage.

My Bible has maps in the back. The map of Palestine at the time of Christ shows Jerusalem smack-dab in the middle of Judea. "Jerusalem was not in Judea" is not only false, it's utterly brain-dead stupid.

Incidentally, what is Judea? A Roman province. Did it exist when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BC? No. So what is the point?

The point is that the anti-Mormon clique are really desperate for an argument that has legs. That's why they fight tooth and nail for anything and everything that might be useful to deceive even one uninformed "Christian."

"The phrase 'land of Jerusalem' isn't even mentioned in the Bible!!!"

Note that this merely changes the subject, which in effect concedes the real point. The Book of Mormon nowhere says that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. It nowhere says that Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem. Whether or not The Book of Mormon is right to use "the land of Jerusalem" is an entirely different question.

4) The "adieu" argument: "David Whitmer's description of the translation process should have resulted in a word-perfect translation. There would be no reason for JS to take liberties with the BoM 'scriptures' by supplanting a foreign word for the English, 'Good-bye.'"

This argument beats up a straw man. Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as "a word-perfect translation" between two unrelated languages, no-one thinks "adieu" is an error; no-one whose opinion is worth a tinker's damn, anyway. And after all, "adieu" is not "a foreign word;" it is an English word of non-English origin, just like many thousands of others.

So there we have it, guys; who agrees with Silly Billy that I got "taken to the cleaners" with these really stoooopid counter-arguments?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Hi Dan,

Dan wrote...

To say that apologists do not get paid is the whole truth for most of them, and mostly true for all of them.

Meaning what, exactly?

Do you mean to say that Mormon "apologists" actually do get paid, after all?

Your not even close, I mean classic in that it sounds like Billy Crystal in the Princess Bride, "he's only mostly dead"?

And the only link between the two is the word "mostly."

Since you can't find an actual paid LDS apologist anywhere, you are merely showing your resentment at having to give up a standard anti-Mormon line of attack.

There are a lot more subjects that are true, that the LDS church will not address, besides these few questions, that I would tend to focus on.

I should add this to my list. Although perhaps "Popular anti-Mormon Misconceptions" isn't the right list. Perhaps I need a new one for "standard anti-Mormon comebacks."

The fact is that, unlike old soldiers, who only seem to hang around for a long time, the old standards really never die, nor do they fade away. They keep getting passed around among the single greatest concentration of clueless people the world has ever seen; and only after they've seen them demolished do all the tin-pot wannabe demagogues fall back on the mantra you've recited above.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

They keep getting passed around among the single greatest concentration of clueless people the world has ever seen.

This is a pretty powerful debating strategy. Kudos. Impugn the intellect of those with whom one disagrees. Good stuff, this. I might adopt it: All Mormons are idiots. Oh, wait, I don't actually believe that. Not by half.

But the reverse seems to be working well in your tightly-constricted universe of ideas.

Keep at it.

Regards,

CKS

[AdamS]

They keep getting passed around among the single greatest concentration of clueless people the world has ever seen.

This is a pretty powerful debating strategy. Kudos. Impugn the intellect of those with whom one disagrees. Good stuff, this. I might adopt it: All Mormons are idiots. Oh, wait, I don't actually believe that. Not by half.

But the reverse seems to be working well in your tightly-constricted universe of ideas.

Keep at it.

Regards,

CKS

Well said!!

[Nomos]

There has been plenty of impugning intellect on both sides of the debate. I have an idea, let's try to debate issues!

Ease up on the sniping please.

-Nomos

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

Do you feel it is wrong for a person to make money for something they labored for and something they are very passionate for?

Did Milton Hunter, Nibley, JFS, McKonkie and alike make any royalties, probably, did it pay for the time and effort (monetary) ? probably not.

Mark

John 1;12

[Who Knows]

I was anticipating William the Conqueror getting stuck into this thread and cleaning my clock with the devastatingly powerful anti-Mormon arguments in support...blah blah blah

So what, no one wanted to play your game of trying to defend weak/lame anti-mo arguments, so you have to play by yourself?

I, and I'm sure other critics will agree, there's not much to defend here (from a critic POV).

[Pahoran]

I was anticipating William the Conqueror getting stuck into this thread and cleaning my clock with the devastatingly powerful anti-Mormon arguments in support...blah blah blah

So what, no one wanted to play your game of trying to defend weak/lame anti-mo arguments, so you have to play by yourself?

Hey--it wasn't me who claimed that the "weak/lame anti-mo arguments" I've posted in support of the popular misconceptions in the OP were wonderfully powerful. It was William the Conqueror who, IIRC, proclaimed that I was "taken to the cleaners" and "skunked" thereby. If you disagree with that, feel free to take it up with him.

And if you don't like the thread, feel free to not participate.

I, and I'm sure other critics will agree, there's not much to defend here (from a critic POV).

That may indeed be a "critic POV." But it is clearly not the only "critic POV" around; just ask the (terribly) "Concerned Christians" Inc, a company with limited liability.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I didn't choose these because they are lame.  In the last analysis, all anti-Mormon arguments are lame.

You're right Pahoran...

There is NO LEGITIMATE reason to question ANYTHING the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints says, has said, does or has done because it is perfect.

All who question the church are just led by satan and/or are idiots.

Right?

Wrong.

Such is not my position.

Now that you know this, you have no further excuse to claim that it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Typically, when I speak within a few hours of my home, I receive nothing at all -- not even compensation for my gas.

Hey! we at least had you over for ice cream or something.....

PS to Markk: FAIR might not appreciate you pushing Dan to push for pay seeing as he's been their closing speaker for many years. I'm just waiting for your posts to be deleted as 'against board interest'.

[AdamS]

I didn't choose these because they are lame.

[phaedrus ut]

As a former patron in the Provo temple I can confirm the 1990 changes regarding women in the temple are not "Bull caca". If someone wants to PM me I'll refresh your memory(but only in the very broadest terms). You can find specifics on your own with quick google. There was plenty of coverage in the NY Times, SL Tribune, Arizona Republic and other newspapers.

The pre 1990 language implied that women held a "subservient" role in their personal exaltation regarding their husband and god. Women now don't feel such a strict burden of obedience is used in the language.

Phaedrus

*language clarification

[Who Knows]

In the last analysis, all anti-Mormon arguments are lame.

What are you referring to?

Still waiting for Pahoran's answer.

[thesometimesaint]

phaedrus ut:

My wife need only follow me in MY righteousness. The second I become unrighteous to ANY extent she need NOT follow.

[Jaybear]

phaedrus ut:

My wife need only follow me in MY righteousness. The second I become unrighteous to ANY extent she need NOT follow.

Does that mean she can go her own way to the celestial kingdom, or does she have to find some other righteous man to follow?

[Daniel Peterson]

Do you feel it is wrong for a person to make money for something they labored for and something they are very passionate for?

What do you want me to say? That, yes, I think it is wrong for anybody to make money from something for which he or she has labored and feels a passion?

That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

I've said nothing about paid clergy or about paid Protestant apologists and "cult"-bashers. I'm simply pointing out the fact that, contrary to frequent allegations that are typically meant to impugn my integrity and/or cast doubt on my intellectual independence, I can't honestly be considered a paid defender of Mormonism.

On the other hand, I don't think mere labor and passion gives one a moral entitlement to money therefrom. I presume that at least a few career criminals (e.g., Mafia dons, serious computer hackers, clever bank robbers) feel passionate about their enterprises and work hard at them.

As a former patron in the Provo temple I can confirm the 1990 changes regarding women in the temple are not "Bull caca".  . . .

The pre 1990 language implied that women held a "subservient" role in their personal exaltation regarding their husband and god.  Women now don't feel such a strict burden of obedience is used in the language.

There's language of obedience in Ephesians 5. But nothing in Ephesians suggests that the salvation of wives depends upon the whims of their husbands. And nothing in the temple ever did, either.

[Scott Lloyd]

The pre 1990 language implied that women held a "subservient" role in their personal exaltation regarding their husband and god. Women now don't feel such a strict burden of obedience is used in the language.

Phaedrus

*language clarification

Even if one draws that inference, it is ridiculous and maliciously misleading to contend that in Mormon belief a woman, however righteous, cannot enter the celestial kingdom without the consent of her husband.

[Scott Lloyd]

phaedrus ut:

My wife need only follow me in MY righteousness. The second I become unrighteous to ANY extent she need NOT follow.

Does that mean she can go her own way to the celestial kingdom, or does she have to find some other righteous man to follow?

No one -- male or female -- can be exalted in the celestial kingdom without being sealed to a worthy spouse for eternity.

[Who Knows]

There's language of obedience in Ephesians 5. But nothing in Ephesians suggests that the salvation of wives depends upon the whims of their husbands. And nothing in the temple ever did, either.

I may be stepping out of bounds here - if so, feel free to delete.

If what you say is correct, why did they change the wording? Perhaps women were getting the impression that their salvation depended on their husbands?

[Scott Lloyd]

There's language of obedience in Ephesians 5.  But nothing in Ephesians suggests that the salvation of wives depends upon the whims of their husbands.  And nothing in the temple ever did, either.

I may be stepping out of bounds here - if so, feel free to delete.

If what you say is correct, why did they change the wording? Perhaps women were getting the impression that their salvation depended on their husbands?

I think it is stepping out of bounds to discuss the wording of the temple ceremony or changes thereto.

But I will say I have never heard a knowledgable and faithful Latter-day Saint woman express a misconception such as you suggest, either before or after 1990. I have, however, seen it used as grist for attempted vilification of Mormonism by malicious antagonists.

[Daniel Peterson]

If what you say is correct, why did they change the wording?

Sorry. I won't discuss things like that here.

Perhaps women were getting the impression that their salvation depended on their husbands?

Perhaps. Anything is possible. But in all my years in the Church, and in all my travels, I never heard that idea anywhere.

[Who Knows]

But I will say I have never heard a knowledgable and faithful Latter-day Saint woman express a misconception such as you suggest, either before or after 1990...

What you wrote seems to suggest that a change was made because some unfaithful or unknowledgable were getting the wrong idea?

Then why not educate the unknowledgable instead of changing things? I just can't believe a change was made to a long standing ceremony because some people were getting the wrong idea.

Anyone know a forum where discussions like this can take place with knowledgable & faithful LDS?

[Scott Lloyd]

But I will say I have never heard a knowledgable and faithful Latter-day Saint woman express a misconception such as you suggest, either before or after 1990...

What you wrote seems to suggest that a change was made because some unfaithful or unknowledgable were getting the wrong idea?

No. That is a mistaken inference on your part.

I don't know why the changes were made, but I have no reason to suspect it is because of what you suggest.

[Who Knows]

No. That is a mistaken inference on your part.

I don't know why the changes were made, but I have no reason to suspect it is because of what you suggest.

Fair enough.

I'd just like to see the apologetic POV, but oh well.